Portsmouth tourney new rules reminder

i just want to remind people that the sanctioned tourney in Portsmouth on the 13th is the UK's first to be governed by the new rules on deals. These say, and i paraphrase, that players must play so's to maximise their VPs. This means that if someone at your table complains to the judge that a deal you are proposing is unlikely to be the best way to maximise your VPs, you will need to convince the judge that the complainer is wrong and that you are right. It's not certain that i'll be the judge or the only judge, but i think i speak on behalf of all likely UK judges when i say that we aren't going to be heavy-handed about this, and in particular i'ld like to reassure players that the traditions of the Great Coupe will be upheld [namely, to be reactive and not proactive in judging, unless a technical violation occurs]. More generally, as James has taught us by his example, judges should be there to resolve disputes, to provide rulings on play, to facilitate fair, accurate and sportspersonlike play: and tournament rules are mechanisms to help them to do their job. If we keep to this philosophy i don't think we will have any problems.

>i just want to remind people that the sanctioned tourney in Portsmouth >on the 13th is the UK's first to be governed by the new rules on >deals. These say, and i paraphrase, that players must play so's to >maximise their VPs. This means that if someone at your table complains >to the judge that a deal you are proposing is unlikely to be the best >way to maximise your VPs, you will need to convince the judge that the >complainer is wrong and that you are right. > ? I thought the new rule was more about maximizing table wins (if possible), and then maximizing VP's? Also BTW, if you're required to maximize VP's and I offer you a 3/2 VP split when you're in a hopeless situation, wouldn't you sort of be required by the VP-maximization to take the deal? So if you refused, I could call a judge over to see if you are indeed trying to maximize VP's? Halcyan 2

legbiter wrote: > > i just want to remind people that the sanctioned tourney in Portsmouth > on the 13th is the UK's first to be governed by the new rules on > deals. These say, and i paraphrase, that players must play so's to > maximise their VPs. This means that if someone at your table complains > to the judge that a deal you are proposing is unlikely to be the best > way to maximise your VPs, you will need to convince the judge that the > complainer is wrong and that you are right. Did I miss a wording change? I thought that: 1) That was always true - that is, this is not a new rule, it was in effect last year; and 2) There is an exception for requirement in that once a player has assured himself of a game win, he need not worry about maximizing his victory points any further. Fred

On 11 Jan 2002 19:22:34 GMT, Halcyan 2 wrote: >? I thought the new rule was more about maximizing table wins (if possible), >and then maximizing VP's? > >Also BTW, if you're required to maximize VP's and I offer you a 3/2 VP split >when you're in a hopeless situation, wouldn't you sort of be required by the >VP-maximization to take the deal? So if you refused, I could call a judge over >to see if you are indeed trying to maximize VP's? No, you're required to refuse the offer. Think it through. In the typical case of the two adjacent rush decks, the player being offered the 2 VPs is the predator and the 3 VP guy is the prey. The proposition is that the predator will help the prey get 3 VPs and then the prey will let himself be ousted. But the prey will be the strongest of the two when this is supposed to happen because he got 18 pool from the three oustings. Because he's supposed to maximise his VPs and there can be no binding deal, he must decline to suicide and will take the last 2 VPs too for a sweep. Because this is predictable and mandatory self-interest, the predator must decline to be a patsy, ignore the bogus offer and instead must play the game properly, attempting to score a VP by ousting his prey. That's the only plausible way to maximise his VPs. Andrew

Frederick Scott wrote: > legbiter wrote: > > i just want to remind people that the sanctioned tourney in Portsmouth > > on the 13th is the UK's first to be governed by the new rules on > > deals. These say, and i paraphrase, that players must play so's to > > maximise their VPs. This means that if someone at your table complains > > to the judge that a deal you are proposing is unlikely to be the best > > way to maximise your VPs, you will need to convince the judge that the > > complainer is wrong and that you are right. Note: "best way" to maximize is irrelevant. So long as it is "a" way to maximize your VPs, you're fine. > Did I miss a wording change? I thought that: > > 1) That was always true - that is, this is not a new rule, it was > in effect last year; and Correct. > 2) There is an exception for requirement in that once a player has > assured himself of a game win, he need not worry about maximizing his > victory points any further. Correct. #1 goal is winning. If you can achieve that, then how you achieve it is up to you. If you cannot achieve the #1 goal, then the #2 goal is to maximize your VPs. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

On Fri, 11 Jan 2002 21:29:42 GMT, Frederick Scott wrote: >2) There is an exception for requirement in that once a player has >assured himself of a game win, he need not worry about maximizing his >victory points any further. There is no exception nor should there be. A player can continue to improve his position after scoring 3 VPs because a win with 5 VPs is better than a win with 3 VPs. It would be not consistent to say that players who have won can do WTF they like while players who cannot win must maximise VPs. If the primary objective is to win and the secondary objective is to score VPs then it follows that players must endeavour to improve their score in both respects at all times. Andrew

"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote: > > There is no exception nor should there be. A player can continue to > improve his position after scoring 3 VPs because a win with 5 VPs is > better than a win with 3 VPs. It would be not consistent to say that > players who have won can do WTF they like while players who cannot win > must maximise VPs. If the primary objective is to win and the > secondary objective is to score VPs then it follows that players must > endeavour to improve their score in both respects at all times. > LSJ wrote: Correct. #1 goal is winning. If you can achieve that, then how you achieve it is up to you. If you cannot achieve the #1 goal, then the #2 goal is to maximize your VPs. So I take your view point as one that would like to straigh jacket every player in the game, by adding additional restrictions. You already want us to play in Mime. Raille

On Sun, 13 Jan 2002 09:28:20 -0500, Raille wrote: >Correct. #1 goal is winning. If you can achieve that, then how you >achieve it is up to you. If you cannot achieve the #1 goal, then >the #2 goal is to maximize your VPs. The VTES tournament rules don't say this nor do the game's rules. They actually say, "... players earn victory points; the winner in the player with the most victory points at the end of the game." This is fuzzy but I can only see two interpretations. One is that the object is to score VPs and the winner is the player who does best at this. Another is to say that the object is to win and that scoring VPs is the way to do it. These are not equivalent to each other nor to your claim which is a mish-mosh of the two. The first interpretation would have you maximise your VPs at all times. The second would have you just do what it takes to win and do what you like if you have already won or can't win. You can't arrive at your interpretation without an additional constraint. >So I take your view point as one that would like to straigh jacket every >player in the game, by adding additional restrictions. I'm adding no additional restriction - just applying the stated objective in a logically consistent manner. You're the one wanting to adding something extra and the reason is transparent - to preserve a flimsy justification for player collusion, i.e. table-splitting. >You already want us to play in Mime. No. Communication by mime or in writing is much the same as speech. If your communication would affect the game then it's not allowed. The game is about playing cards within the framework of the rules. Negotiation and dealmaking is not part of the game. If you want to do that, try Pit - it's good fun and much cheaper. Andrew

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3C402497...@white-wolf.com>... > Frederick Scott wrote: > > legbiter wrote: > > > i just want to remind people that the sanctioned tourney in Portsmouth > > > on the 13th is the UK's first to be governed by the new rules on > > > deals. These say, and i paraphrase, that players must play so's to > > > maximise their VPs. This means that if someone at your table complains > > > to the judge that a deal you are proposing is unlikely to be the best > > > way to maximise your VPs, you will need to convince the judge that the > > > complainer is wrong and that you are right. > > Note: "best way" to maximize is irrelevant. So long as it is "a" way to > maximize your VPs, you're fine. > > > Did I miss a wording change? I thought that: > > > > 1) That was always true - that is, this is not a new rule, it was > > in effect last year; and > > Correct. > > > 2) There is an exception for requirement in that once a player has > > assured himself of a game win, he need not worry about maximizing his > > victory points any further. > > Correct. #1 goal is winning. If you can achieve that, then how you achieve > it is up to you. If you cannot achieve the #1 goal, then the #2 goal is > to maximize your VPs. Thanks for the clarifications. Now that the tourney is all done and dusted, maybe i should just say a few words on how the new rules [or possibly the old rules which we've just realised applied] worked out. The focus on table wins was fine, and probably because of that there was no discussion of table-splitting deals at all, so we didn't have to worry about whether or not any such deals were going to maximise peoples' victory points. No Hard Rules Questions came up, although Matt was a bit put out to discover that the extra cost for scarce vampires has to be paid even if you yourself currently don't control any [there just has to be one or more in play]. The new rules had much less impact than i thought they might on combat decks, judging by the way the only one which was fielded on the day fared: Michael played well and he also judged the table well, "farming" decks he could handle [eg mine and matt's] until they ousted those [eg multi-majesty] which he couldn't handle. This ALMOST won him the tourney, and DID win him the third heat. The table-wins rule also allowed us to cut through a lot of the silly "rush-him-he's-gonna-get-a-VP" chatter which surprised me slightly; i agreed with David tatu's prediction that the first VP was going to be super-important under the new dispensation. We had three bloodlines decks and two non-bloodlines decks, the latter taking first and second place. One of the Bloodlines decks was the obvious but awful !Ven/Salubri/Harbingers "Millstone" deck, which was the first time i'd encountered it, and it's certainly an irritating thing for a toolbox deck to sit downstream of. However, Matt's version of it wasn't going to win any games EVER, which he wisely now acknowledges. In Matt's defense i should say that he is an old magic player and i understand that this deck-type is pretty good in Magic, indeed my own casual-play experience is that hand/land destruction is MUCH better in two-player Magic than are the equivalent strategies in multi-player VTES. John's Daughters/!ventrue deck looked pretty sweet but never seemed to have enough stealth or intercept when it mattered. Admittedly his version did get 1VP, but i've had better luck with a Ventrue/Daughters/weenie presence deck [it's posted in the Bloodlines - Heh! thread]. Michael's Salubri/!Salubri deck is a pretty good one, judging by results, since he has beaten me with it now not just at home but also in a tourney, and he has drawn with Rob Treasure. i'll post it shortly with his blessing, possibly this evening. i had actually intended to play a pot/for bloodlines rush deck at this tourney, but seeing the low turnout i opted for ToGS, because i knew that Michael would be playing rush and i thought it wouldn't be much fun for everyone else if there were two combat decks kicking them in in EVERY heat; nor, in fact, would it have been fun for Michael, since his deck dies rather to IG.